Apr 22, 2013 5:00pm PDT
didn't happen in the bush administration, didn't happen in the obama administration, so that was never -- that's just not -- it's irrelevant at this point. now the case is under way. the fact that he was well enough to be arraigned on the complaint means now that the government will move to present this case in the grand jury, probably within a month there will be an indictment, and then the case will move to a federal district court. at that point, i expect things will slow down quite a bit. i would be surprised, given the magnitude and complexity of this case, that there could be a trial inside of a year, but at least now the process is under way. >> juliette, from a law enforcement standpoint, do you think it was the right decision to try him in civilian court? >> absolutely. like what jeff said, there is just really no debate about this. it's more of a political debate. for one, the law doesn't even cover him because he's a u.s. citizen. but from a law enforcement national security perspective, what better way to minimize the impact of terrorists than to treat them like criminals.
Apr 23, 2013 6:00am PDT
remain in legal limbo. by treating them as criminal suspects, the obama administration is avoiding all kinds of risks and simply acting as the bush administration has in the past and as they have acted in other terrorist cases by using the normal criminal procedures. >> because lindsey graham and others say, yes, he should be tried as a u.s. citizen, should be tried in a u.s. civilian court, but that can await this process of doing some serious interrogation of him and designating him as an enemy combatant in the meantime. all of this is moot right now, because as you know, yesterday, he was formally given his miranda rights and a judge magistrate at his bed side with a court-appointed attorney, a public defender. this is moot as the obama administration has made its decision. is lindsey graham on sound legal ground, saying he should be tried in a civilian court, but held and questioned as an enemy combatant? >> i think the only fair answer to that question is we don't know. because it's never been done before in american history to have some sort of hybrid combatant and criminal proce
Apr 22, 2013 7:00pm PDT
political debate more than a legal one. >> i mean, there was never really, at least among the obama administration, never a thought of having this guy being charged or treated as an enemy combatant. >> nor in the bush administration. every terrorist arrest inside of the united states has been tried in a united states criminal court, in a federal district court. that's what president bush did. that's what president obama did and this fellow is an american citizen. it's far from clear that there's any law that would allow him to be tried as an enemy combatant. this is a procedure we know works. people get tried in criminal courts every day. the combatant laws we don't know that one can be successfully conducted. that's lost in a mar ras in guantanamo bay. this case will take a long time, be expensive and complicated but he's going to trial and there's going to be a verdict. we know that. >> jeff, thank you very much. fran, julia, as well. appreciate it. follow me on twitte twitter @andersoncooper. what do you think? should he be charged in a criminal court opposed to an enemy combatan